Google Ad Manager MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a timeout parameter (120 seconds default) which hints at potential long-running operations, but doesn't address other important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens when the timeout is exceeded. The description is functional but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, return metrics, parameter documentation, and return summary. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the parameter section is lengthy but necessary given the complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and their semantics, explains the return metrics, and provides operational context. The main gap is lack of behavioral transparency around permissions, rate limits, and error conditions, but the parameter documentation is excellent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides extensive parameter documentation that fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, valid values for date_range_type, conditional requirements (CUSTOM_DATE requires start/end parameters), defaults, and optional filtering capabilities. This adds significant meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run a delivery report for orders and line items' with specific metrics (impressions, clicks, CTR, revenue). It distinguishes itself from other reporting tools like 'run_custom_report' and 'run_inventory_report' by focusing specifically on delivery metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the naming difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through parameter documentation (e.g., date_range_type options, when CUSTOM_DATE requires additional parameters), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_custom_report' or 'run_inventory_report'. It provides context about what the report returns but lacks explicit guidance on use cases or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.